Case Note & Summary
The Civil Revision Application was filed by the original Plaintiff/landlady, Sau. Suman Ramesh Samant, against the Respondent/original Defendant/tenant, Shri. Arun R. Patil, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003. The Trial Court (3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan) had decreed the suit in RCS/797/1996 on 15/02/2003, directing the tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises on the ground of damage to the premises under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Appellate Court reversed this decree, dismissing the suit. The landlady contended that the Appellate Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court, which had correctly appreciated the evidence, including the Commissioner's report and photographs showing damage. The tenant argued that the damage was due to normal wear and tear and that the landlady failed to prove the extent of damage. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Appellate Court had not properly considered the evidence and had reversed the Trial Court's findings without sufficient justification. The High Court held that the burden was on the tenant to show that the damage was not due to his negligence, and the tenant failed to discharge that burden. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree of eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Damage to Premises - Section 13(1)(a) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Section 108(o) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The landlady sought eviction of tenant for causing damage to the suit premises and not using them with care. The Trial Court decreed eviction, but the Appellate Court reversed. The High Court held that the Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the burden on the tenant to show that the damage was not due to his negligence. The High Court restored the Trial Court's decree, allowing the revision. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Revision under Section 115 CPC - Scope - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court examined whether the Appellate Court's judgment suffered from jurisdictional error or material irregularity. It found that the Appellate Court had misappreciated evidence and reversed findings without proper basis, warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree of eviction on the ground of damage to the suit premises under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 22/09/2006, and restored the Trial Court's decree dated 15/02/2003 directing the tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises.
Law Points
- Eviction under Bombay Rent Act
- Section 13(1)(a) for damage to premises
- Section 108(o) Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- burden of proof on tenant to show no damage
- appellate court's reversal without proper appreciation of evidence
Case Details
Civil Revision Application No. 285 of 2007
Ms. Preeti Walimbe a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Nagargoje for the Applicant, Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. P. M. Bhansali and Mr. Arafat Siddique for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC challenging appellate judgment in rent control eviction suit
Remedy Sought
Landlady sought eviction of tenant on ground of damage to suit premises under Section 13(1)(a) of Bombay Rent Act
Filing Reason
Tenant caused damage to suit premises and did not use them with care, contravening Section 108(o) of Transfer of Property Act
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed eviction on 15/02/2003; Appellate Court reversed on 22/09/2006
Issues
Whether the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's decree of eviction on the ground of damage to the suit premises under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant/landlady argued that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence, including the Commissioner's report and photographs, which clearly showed damage to the premises, and that the tenant did not use the premises with care.
Respondent/tenant argued that the damage was due to normal wear and tear and that the landlady failed to prove the extent of damage or that it was caused by the tenant's negligence.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 read with Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the tenant is bound to use the premises with care and is liable for eviction if damage is caused. The burden of proof lies on the tenant to show that the damage was not due to his negligence or that it was due to normal wear and tear. The Appellate Court's reversal without proper appreciation of evidence constituted a material irregularity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The Civil Revision Application is filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC' for short) by original Plaintiff/landlady against Respondent/original Defendant/tenant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2006 passed by 3rd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2003.
The Applicant / landlady filed the said suit under provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Bombay Rent Act' for short) seeking eviction of the Respondent on the grounds of damages to the suit premises and for not using it with care under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act being contravention of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Procedural History
The suit was filed by the landlady in the Trial Court (3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan) as RCS/797/1996. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 15/02/2003, ordering eviction. The tenant appealed to the District Court, Kalyan, which allowed the appeal on 22/09/2006, setting aside the decree. The landlady then filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 115
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act): 13(1)(a)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 108(o)
